In fact, as early as 20 15 and 10, the Shanghai Arbitration Tribunal recognized the legal effect of the Franco-German electronic contract, which was the first case of electronic contract in China. Since then, courts and arbitration institutions in Hangzhou, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Chongqing and Tianjin have also recognized the legal effect of electronic contracts. A simple example is as follows:

20 15 10, Shanghai arbitration tribunal recognized the legal effect of Dafa electronic contract in arbitration cases;

2065438+July 2006, Shangcheng District People's Court of Hangzhou ruled an Internet financial transaction case according to a developed electronic contract;

On July 20 16, the labor contract signed by France University Platform was recognized by Shanghai Jiading District Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission;

20 16 10, China Guangzhou arbitration commission online arbitration recognition law greatly enhanced the legal effect of electronic contracts;

2065438+March 2007, China Guangzhou Arbitration Commission recognized the legal effect of Dafa electronic contract in a number of small loan cases;

2065438+August 2007, China Guangzhou Arbitration Commission recognized the evidential effect of Dafa electronic contract in the arbitration of a sales case;

In 2065438+2008, the evidential effect of Dafa electronic contract was recognized by the judgments of Tianjin District Court and Chongqing District Court in many cases. ?

Below, I will cite 1 electronic contract cases to help you better understand why electronic contracts can be recognized by courts and arbitration institutions.

On April 20th, 20 16, Company A reached a cooperation with travel agency B. Company A was responsible for attracting tourists for travel agency B's travel products and handed them over to travel agency B for reception. On the same day, the two sides signed an electronic contract through the French platform.

Later, due to the breach of contract by travel agency B, a confirmed itinerary was forced to be cancelled, and company A received a large number of complaints from tourists. Company A returned the tourists' money and paid more than 40,000 yuan in compensation.

Soon after, Company A sued Travel Agency B to the court.

Company A claims that the contract involved in this case was formed by electronic signature, and the authenticity of the electronic signature has been greatly examined and confirmed by the third-party electronic contract platform method.

Subsequently, Company A applied for a report on the authenticity of document signing to the platform of the University of France, and submitted the report to the court.

Finally, after trial, the court made a judgment on this case on May 18, 2065438, and found that the tourism electronic contract signed on the platform of France University was legally established and valid.

The court ruled: "We believe that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as the tourist reception contract, the authenticity certificate report signed by the French university, the product cancellation form, the complaint confirmation form, the payment receipt, the reception contract, the notarial certificate and the statement in the trial, can confirm its authenticity. Accordingly, it can be confirmed that the entrusted acceptance contract signed between the original and the defendant is legally established and valid, and both parties shall perform their obligations in accordance with the agreement. " (Excerpted from the Civil Judgment of the People's Court of Suzhou Industrial Park)